The economy in the United States is in a collapse. The Capitalist system does not work anymore; banks have become more powerful than our politicians. The government now has a policy based around
Fear and Greed. The rich are getting
richer and more powerful, while the great masses of America wallow in poverty.
Must we continue to exist in this passive state, only living to serve the rich and powerful? Or do
we, the great masses, stand up against the policies of Fear, and Greed, and
God? We must break the bonds that
separate us, we must pull down the centers of Greed and Fear and we must pull
down the houses of God.
These borders are created to separate us into individuals where we can be controlled easier.
We must stand up, against the tyranny of the centers of Greed, and Fear, and God; quoting John Adams: “People should not fear
government, government should fear people.”
Once we stand up to Fear, to Greed, to God, we will become united!
This being said, I advocate the collapse of the Capitalist system and the foundation of the United Socialist Federal Republic, in which
the government will exist to serve the people.
Capitalism is Dead. We must put
it out of it’s misery and move on toward Socialism.
http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/the-united-socialist-feder... (to view the 19 pages of discussion)
Not to mention that to live on welfare is to live WELL below the poverty level. I make about 40k a year, have a very low rent and still have trouble living "within my means." the most expensive thing I own is my vehicle, which is over 15 years old.
Even welfare (at least where I live) isn't enough to survive on. I live in a VERY poor are, and I've applied before I got my life together.. You get $400 a month and have to go to classes 40 hours a week on job training. how a person can live off of that is beyond me. I grew up middle class~ I can only empathize with those people who have been laid off and are trying to live off of unemployment.
I had a coworker who as soon as she got an almost minimum wage job was removed from food stamps because she was making too much. By almost minimum wage I mean barely over minimum. Not enough to buy food but too much to get food stamps.
Heh, all of this reminds me of the book Nickle & Dimed and how some kid (and his parents) found the words, "Jesus is a wine guzzling vagrant," to be so offensive that they demanded the school district get rid of the book.
I'll post the two videos in case anyone wants to see them.
I speak of unemployment, but it also can apply to welfare.
I believe in helping folks in need and i agree once in the hell hole of welfare it is tough to get out. It is a viscous cycle. But to expand it and not to try to limit it only makes it worse. My experience is a large percentage of people who need the help never get it because they are honest or at least try to be and this is held against them. This and pride prevents the safety net from helping whom it is meant to help.
Most people that qualify lie about there side jobs, assets etc;
how else could one live on the meager amts provided by welfare.
The Bushes have been rich for three full generations and it shows no sign of changing. The Kennedys also. Im not sure if the Rothchilds would be considered a family or a bank- perhaps both. We are rewarding the rich for not working and for rigging the system in their favor. Look at the bank guys. I feel we did have to bail banks out for out own good- but they did not live up to their obligations to the public. They didn't even have the stones to say thank you for bailing their greedy negligent azzes out. Our current model, which is neither capitalist or socialist, is rewarding bad performance at the cost of the lower and middle class. We are not rewarding the poor sufficiently to work and the middle class lacks the stability to open small businesses. We do need a way to take care of people who are sick so they can work (both mentally and physically) educate folks so they can work, and get everyone who can work working with reasonable work ethics. We need to make sure that folks get paid a decent wage so it's not more advantageous to stay on welfare and they can pay taxes like everyone else; to support out schools, hospitals, and roads.
It's horrible that we have kids growing up thinking that an education is for punks, ditto for hard work and respect.
Having been in Europe- some socialism isn't bad as it's been made out to be. Socialist and Capitalist governments both can and do go bankrupt, break the public trust, persecute minority views and cultures, and supress freedoms. Governments are only as good as their civil servants and elected officials. Public participation and oversight are always the key.
Also- I accidentally deleted your post on my "Why i will never come out as an Athiest" blog. I liked your response. I feel we have a few things in common about our philosophical history.
yes the bush's have some cash but I do not begrudge them for that and i doubt if much money stays in most family's more than a few generations.
yes some wealthy abuse the system but so do many not so wealthy.
I still believe in capitalism, private ownership works best. the govt is all about waste and excuse my french but sucking on the govt "tit" is a way of life for many not just those on welfare.
I know many a state/federal worker who pride themselves on how little they really do at work. The system is full of waste in a way you just don't see in the private sector.
Private businesses that aren't lean go under (except if bailed out by uncle sam)
govt agency's just suck up more tax money and keep doing business as usual (us postal service)
I stand by my statement....
yes the US economy went thru some(still is) problems but i hate to tell you it ain't the only economy that tanked, and not all of the others were non capitalistic utopia's.
the us economy also tanked in the great depression and came back.
My point is i believe in capitalism(private ownership) with a reasonable safety net.
(although I think any safety net, could be argued, is not evolutionarily sound)
Any system that removes or limits personal responsibility is doomed to fail. Humans are programed to respond best under some individual pressure.
Evolution is a cruel master......
I would argue against including social evolution in any idea of an economic model. As sentient beings, we have the ability to direct (to a point) the development of society~ not so when you talk about speciation/micro/macro evolution. evolution is an organism's adaptation to its environment, and that doesn't seem to correlate to progression in large communities.
On that note, if you look at the progress of society as a whole over the last millenia or two, you could say that the changes that have occurred are directly contrary to a societal evolutionary theory. Changes such as the prolongment of life for those chronically impaired (we don't just toss away those who are disabled permanently) social safety nets for the aged (they stop contributing a great deal, yet retain benefits from the greater society) and voting rights for all citizens [giving the ignoramus who cleans bathrooms at a truck stop [not to denigrate the profession] the same amount of say as a highly educated individual) all seem to run contrary to an adaptive "survival of the fittest" evolutionary outlook.
~ keep in mind that "survival of the fittest" is not a darwinian evolutionary theory. that was proposed later; Darwin simply stated that organisms adapted to their evironment over time, with no regard to "strongest" or "weakest"~
It would seem to me that the real way to view the changes that we as a global community are making can be related to the development of a child's intellect. Its a process of maturation, not of evolution. The sooner we reach a level that realizes the most important part of a system is the welfare of the people, to be in control by the people, and not corporations or other entities who have their own welfare in interest, the sooner we will reach a better future for everyone.
A system that rests the wealth of a nation on business and corporations is fundamentally flawed in respect to the idea that allowing the proliferation of said enterprises will empower and enrich the lives of people. the fundamental flaw I am refering to is the misunderstanding of where those benefits come from. they are not a direct result of the prospering of said entities, but a by product~ the focus of the system should be the people themselves; a corporation/capitalist entity's only interest is maintaining its profit and survival, which actually brings a "survival of the fittest" element into an equation that has largely removed it.
~in short, enlightenment, change of culture, and a sense of universal community and cooperation are the real goals~ those goals run directly contrary to interests found in free enterprise societies. Capitalism can be very useful in controlled amounts, but to found a society on its principals is to go directly against what will make us even greater in the future~
One of the reasons that China is overtaking us economically, I think, is that it does not have tax-exempt religion which robs our taxes of perhaps as much as a trillion dollars a year, some have estimated. It can put much more money into infrastructure and development of alternative energy industries which it now has become dominant in. The poor Holy American Empire, Corp. on the other hand is busy funding superstition and bullshit, and is going down, down and further down.
I wonder what what ( if any) kind of fraud they have. That takes a lot out of our economy as well.
There's also the virtual slave labor and black box economics.